Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies

This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i>n </i>= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Lukas Wegmüller, Florian Halbeisen, Neha Sharma, Sebastian Kühl, Florian M. Thieringer
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	MDPI AG 2021
Materias:	three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da2021-11-11T17:32:41ZConsumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies10.3390/jcm102148942077-0383https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da2021-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/4894https://doaj.org/toc/2077-0383This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i>n </i>= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i>p</i> < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs.Lukas WegmüllerFlorian HalbeisenNeha SharmaSebastian KühlFlorian M. ThieringerMDPI AGarticlethree-dimensionalprintingbiocompatible materialscomputer-aided designsurgicalpatient-specificMedicineRENJournal of Clinical Medicine, Vol 10, Iss 4894, p 4894 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R
spellingShingle	three-dimensional printing biocompatible materials computer-aided design surgical patient-specific Medicine R Lukas Wegmüller Florian Halbeisen Neha Sharma Sebastian Kühl Florian M. Thieringer Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
description	This study evaluates the accuracy of drill guides fabricated in medical-grade, biocompatible materials for static, computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS). The virtually planned drill guides of ten completed patient cases were printed (<i>n </i>= 40) using professional (Material Jetting (MJ)) and consumer-level three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies, namely, Stereolithography (SLA), Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), and Digital Light Processing (DLP). After printing and post-processing, the drill guides were digitized using an optical scanner. Subsequently, the drill guide’s original (reference) data and the surface scans of the digitized 3D-printed drill guide were superimposed to evaluate their incongruencies. The accuracy of the 3D-printed drill guides was calculated by determining the root mean square (RMS) values. Additionally, cast models of the planned cases were used to check that the drill guides fitted manually. The RMS (mean ± SD) values for the accuracy of 3D-printed drill guides were—MJ (0.09 ± 0.01 mm), SLA (0.12 ± 0.02 mm), FFF (0.18 ± 0.04 mm), and DLP (0.25 ± 0.05 mm). Upon a subjective assessment, all drill guides could be mounted on the cast models without hindrance. The results revealed statistically significant differences (<i>p</i> < 0.01) in all except the MJ- and SLA-printed drill guides. Although the measured differences in accuracy were statistically significant, the deviations were negligible from a clinical point of view. Within the limits of this study, we conclude that consumer-level 3D printers can produce surgical guides with a similar accuracy to a high-end, professional 3D printer with reduced costs.
format	article
author	Lukas Wegmüller Florian Halbeisen Neha Sharma Sebastian Kühl Florian M. Thieringer
author_facet	Lukas Wegmüller Florian Halbeisen Neha Sharma Sebastian Kühl Florian M. Thieringer
author_sort	Lukas Wegmüller
title	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
title_short	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
title_full	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
title_fullStr	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
title_full_unstemmed	Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies
title_sort	consumer vs. high-end 3d printers for guided implant surgery—an in vitro accuracy assessment study of different 3d printing technologies
publisher	MDPI AG
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/54dfd7b164ab45568180700e727669da
work_keys_str_mv	AT lukaswegmuller consumervshighend3dprintersforguidedimplantsurgeryaninvitroaccuracyassessmentstudyofdifferent3dprintingtechnologies AT florianhalbeisen consumervshighend3dprintersforguidedimplantsurgeryaninvitroaccuracyassessmentstudyofdifferent3dprintingtechnologies AT nehasharma consumervshighend3dprintersforguidedimplantsurgeryaninvitroaccuracyassessmentstudyofdifferent3dprintingtechnologies AT sebastiankuhl consumervshighend3dprintersforguidedimplantsurgeryaninvitroaccuracyassessmentstudyofdifferent3dprintingtechnologies AT florianmthieringer consumervshighend3dprintersforguidedimplantsurgeryaninvitroaccuracyassessmentstudyofdifferent3dprintingtechnologies
_version_	1718432064808681472

Consumer vs. High-End 3D Printers for Guided Implant Surgery—An In Vitro Accuracy Assessment Study of Different 3D Printing Technologies

Ejemplares similares